Tag Archives: Walter Kaiser

In Matthew 16:28 Jesus promises his disciples, “Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” What did Jesus mean? To which coming was he referring, because his Second Coming still has not occurred?

First, some have suggested that this may be a reference to the Day of Pentecost where Christ’s Helper, the Holy Spirit, came to descend upon the apostles. In John’s Gospel (14:26), Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit, and, in the beginning of Acts (1:4–8), He tells them not to leave Jerusalem until they have received the Holy Spirit. But this hardly seems to fit the description of seeing Christ coming in His kingdom (Matt. 16:28).

Second, others believe this might be a reference to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in A.D. 70. This would mean that He would return to bring judgment upon the city that rejected Him and crucified Him. While this is a possible explanation, it does not seem to account for the fact that Jesus appears to be coming for believers (those ‘standing there’ with Him), not simply coming in judgment on unbelievers. Nor does the judgment on Jerusalem in A.D. 70 adequately express seeing the ‘Son of Man coming in His kingdom’ (v. 28), a phrase reminiscent of His second coming (cf. 26:64). Nor does it explain why Jesus never appeared in A.D. 70.

A third and more plausible explanation is that this is a reference to the appearance of Christ in His glory on the Mount of Transfiguration which begins in the very next verse (17:1). Here Christ does literally appear in a glorified form, and some of His apostles are there to witness the occasion, namely Peter, James, and John. This transfiguration experience, of course, was only a foretaste of His Second Coming when all believers will see Him come in power and great glory (cf. Acts 1:11; Rev. 1:7).

With the death and exaltation of Jesus and the coming of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost following, some of those who were witnesses of his mighty works in Galilee and elsewhere saw the power of the kingdom of God manifested on a scale unmatched during his ministry. Within a few weeks, the number of his followers multiplied tenfold; his kingdom was visibly on the march.

This, at any rate, is an interpretation of his saying about the kingdom of God having come with power which makes it intelligible to us. Whether or not this interpretation coincides with his intention when he spoke in this way is a question to which it is best not to give a dogmatic answer.

The three Evangelists who record the saying (in varying terms) go on immediately to describe Jesus’ transfiguration, as though that event bore some relation to the saying (Mt 17:1–8; Mk 9:2–8; Lk 9:28–36). It cannot be said that the transfiguration was the event which Jesus said would come within the lifetime of some of his hearers; one does not normally use such language to refer to something that is to take place in a week’s time.

But the three disciples who witnessed the transfiguration had a vision of the Son of Man vindicated and glorified; they saw in graphic anticipation the fulfillment of his words about the powerful advent of the kingdom of God. Matthew, strikingly, in his report of the words speaks of the Son of Man instead of the kingdom of God: ‘there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom’ (Mt 16:28 RSV). This is an interpretation of the words, but a true interpretation. And Matthew follows Mark in saying that when the disciples had seen the vision, Jesus forbade them to speak about it to anyone ‘until the Son of man should have risen from the dead’ (Mk 9:9 RSV). His rising from the dead would inaugurate the reality which they had seen in the vision on the mount of transfiguration, and would at the same time herald the coming of the kingdom ‘with power.’

In my research on this question, most scholars follow Geisler and Howe: the transfiguration is the coming to which Jesus refers. However, a significant minority also note that Jesus’ resurrection and the Day of Pentecost are better answers to this question. We can agree that it is “best not to give a dogmatic answer.”

Share this:

Traditional scholarship holds that Daniel was written in the sixth century BC and is historically reliable, but many modern biblical scholars hold that Daniel was written in the second century BC and is pious fiction. Let’s take a look at some of the evidence offered for the second century date and responses to that evidence by critical scholarship.

Belshazzar is called ‘king’ of Babylon in Daniel 5; the actual king was Nabonidus.

Darius the Mede (5:31 and ch. 6) is otherwise unknown.

The stories of Nebuchadnezzar’s insanity and of the fiery furnace read like pious legends— far-fetched miracle stories common in intertestamental Jewish texts.

Half of Daniel was written in Aramaic, a language Jews spoke during the intertestamental period. Daniel 3 also includes three Greek words— suggesting that the book was written after Greek culture had invaded the Near East.

How do traditionalists respond?

Ben Sirach also omits mention of other famous Israelites, including Ezra. Also, Sirach may himself have been influenced by Daniel. In Sirach 36:10 he prayed, ‘Hasten the day, and remember the appointed time’— verbiage resembling Daniel 11: 27, 35. It may be that ben Sirach offhandedly cited Daniel, which of course implies that the book already existed in his lifetime.

The book demonstrates familiarity with the history and culture of the seventh and sixth centuries B.C. Daniel rightly portrays the position of Belshazzar, coregent with Nabonidus. He could have appropriately been called ‘king’ (5: 1), but in 5: 16 Belshazzar offered to make the one who could interpret the writing on the wall ‘the third highest ruler in the kingdom.’ As Belshazzar was himself the second ruler, this was the highest honor he could confer.

Darius the Mede is not mentioned by that name outside the Bible. This is the kind of historical puzzle scholars frequently encounter in ancient texts. In contrast, intertestamental Jewish works of religious fiction lack historical credibility in a way that has no parallel in historical works. The Apocryphal book of Judith, for example, written during the reign of Antiochus IV, contains absurd historical blunders and is altogether unlike Daniel.

The miracles of Daniel are outside the ability of history or archaeology to prove. Still, the following observations are pertinent: Miracles do not prove that a work is fictional. Nebuchadnezzar’s madness was a rare but authentic clinical condition called boanthropy. ‘Made-up’ miracle stories contain outrageous elements with no clinical analogy (e.g., in Tb 2: 9– 10, another Apocryphal book, Tobit goes blind because of sparrow droppings in his eyes).

The fact that half of Daniel is written in Aramaic is a mystery with regard to any proposed reconstruction of its history. But the Aramaic of Daniel is ‘official,’ or ‘imperial’— the standardized Aramaic used in official correspondence when Aramaic was the lingua franca of the Near East (see 2Ki 18: 26; Ezr 4: 7; Da 2: 4), not the colloquial, regional Aramaic of second-century B.C. Palestine, at which time the common language of the region was Greek. All three of the Greek words of 3: 5 are musical terms. Greek poets and musicians were renowned, so their musical vocabulary came into use early. What would be surprising is how little Greek appears in Daniel, if the book had been written in the second century B.C., when the world was thoroughly Hellenized. The Persian words in Daniel are of an older, pre-Hellenistic Persian.

Stephen Miller, writing in the Apologetics Study Bible, offers additional evidence for the traditional dating of Daniel in the sixth century BC:

2. The book professes to have been written by Daniel (see 7: 1; 12: 4), to be an account of a historical individual who experienced the exile and lived in Babylon, and to predict future events (e.g., 2: 29-45; 7: 2,15-27; 8: 15-26; 9: 24-27; 10: 14; 11: 2– 12: 4).

3. One of the eight manuscripts of Daniel discovered at Qumran (4QDanc) has been dated to about 125 b.c. and may have been written earlier. Some scholars have argued that there would have been insufficient time for the book of Daniel to have gained such widespread acceptance if it were written only 40 years previously.

4. The Septuagint was the Greek translation of the OT produced in Alexandria, Egypt, that came to be used widely by the Jews of the Diaspora. Scholars generally agree that at least the Pentateuch (first five books) was translated in the middle of the third century b.c., but it is likely that all the Bible books were translated into Greek about the same time. If so, a second century date for Daniel is impossible. According to the critical view, only 30 years after it was written, the book of Daniel was received into the canon and carried to Alexandria, approximately 300 miles away, and there translated into Greek. Such a proposal seems unlikely.

5. Ezekiel, the sixth-century prophet, mentioned Daniel three times in his book (Ezk 14: 14, 20; 28: 3)— seemingly clear verification of the traditional view. Critical scholars, however, insist Ezekiel was speaking of a mythological hero named Danel who appears in the ancient Ugaritic epic “The Tale of Aqhat.” A decisive argument against such a theory is that the epic Danel was an idolater, hardly a model of faithfulness to Israel’s God. Ezekiel must have been referring to the author of the book of Daniel. If so, the historicity of Daniel and his book would seem to be established.

Share this:

One of the ways we can investigate whether an ancient document is historically reliable is to find corroboration of its claims in archaeological findings. Because the Gospel of John was written in the first century AD, we can look to findings dated in that time period to corroborate details recorded in the Gospel. How does the Gospel of John fare?

Let’s look specifically at the Pool of Bethesda. Walter Kaiser and Duane Garrett, in the NIV Archaeological Study Bible, describe what archaeologists have discovered.

The pool at Bethesda was a familiar locale among the Jews of Jerusalem. It was mentioned, for example, in Qumran’s Copper Scroll as the ‘place of poured out water.’ It was located near what are now the ruins of the basilica of Saint Anne to the north of the temple mount. The ‘pool’ was actually two pools surrounded by four porticoes, with a fifth portico situated between them. Coupled with the elegant porticoes, the pools must have been an impressive sight. While the lavish complex of John’s day likely dated to the reign of Herod the Great, the pools were probably in use before that and may have been the site of an intermittent spring.

The Biblical Archaeology Staff provide additional details in their article entitled “The Bethesda Pool, Site of One of Jesus’ Miracles.”

When Jesus heals the paralytic in the Gospel of John, the Bethesda Pool is described as having five porticoes—a puzzling feature suggesting an unusual five-sided pool, which most scholars dismissed as an unhistorical literary creation. Yet when this site was excavated, it revealed a rectangular pool with two basins separated by a wall—thus a five-sided pool—and each side had a portico.

The Jesus miracle story also tells how many people sought the Bethesda Pool’s healing powers. The first person to enter the pool when the waters were stirred up would supposedly be cured of his or her ailment. But, the paralytic tells Jesus, he can never get into the water quickly enough. So Jesus immediately cures him, and he is able to get up and walk.

This story about Jesus’ miracle suggests a long history of healing at the site. Roman medicinal baths constructed at the Bethesda Pool only a century or two later reflect this continued tradition. When Christians controlled Jerusalem in the Byzantine and Crusader periods, they liked to mark the sites of Jesus’ miracles and other important events in his life, so they added a chapel and churches that now cover the Bethesda Pool complex.

So why a pool with two basins? The archaeological evidence shows that the southern basin had broad steps with landings, indicating that it was indeed a mikveh. The northern basin provided a reservoir, or otzer, to continually replenish and repurify the mikveh with fresh water flowing south through the dam between them. Jerusalem’s pilgrims would flock to the Bethesda Pool and Siloam Pool to purify themselves in these public mikva’ot and, at times, to seek healing.

Archaeological findings, like the Pool of Bethesda, give us confidence that the author of the Gospel of John was an eyewitness of the events he was reporting, and, therefore, in a good position to report what actually occurred.

Share this:

The traditional view of the book of Ezra is that it was written by Ezra the scribe and completed around 400 BC. The Book of Ezra appears to be a continuation of 1 and 2 Chronicles, which leads some to posit that a single author composed both. In addition, many scholars agree that the author of Ezra is also the author of Nehemiah, so it is possible that a single author was responsible for all three books. There is more certainty, however, that Ezra and Nehemiah were composed by a single author.

The Book of Ezra is a history of the early days of the return of the Jewish people from their 70 years of captivity in Babylon. The book spans 538 BC to around 456 BC. Ezra 1-6 describes the return from Babylon under the leadership of Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel, and the rebuilding of the Jerusalem temple. Ezra 7-10 is Ezra’s own account of his activities as priest and scribe to order the life of the returned Jewish community according to biblical standards.

The Medo-Persian King Cyrus conquers Babylon in 539 BC. The very next year Cyrus starts to overturn the policies of the Babylonians with regard to the exile communities living in their midst. In verses 1-4 of chapter one, Cyrus decrees that the Jews in Babylonian exile may return to their homeland in Judah and rebuild the temple. In addition, Cyrus would provide monetary assistance for the construction of the temple.

Certainly Cyrus believed that his empire was built with the help of the god who ruled over the entire earth. In writing to various peoples, he called that deity by the name of the highest god of the people to whom he wrote. This might be a classic case of political propaganda, or Cyrus may have assumed that there was one god, who was called different names by different peoples. In either case, Cyrus both appealed to the gods to support his kingship and to the peoples of his new empire to accept him as rightful ruler.

Cyrus’ concern was to establish strong buffer states around his empire which would be loyal to him. Also by having his subject peoples resettled in their own countries he hoped to have the gods in various parts of his empire praying for him to his gods Bel and Nebo. The famous Cyrus Cylinder (538 B.C.), which records his capture of Babylon and his program of repatriating his subject peoples in their homelands, includes this statement: ‘May all the gods whom I have resettled in their sacred cities daily ask Bel and Nebo for a long life for me.’

Although Cyrus is the king who allows the Jews to return from exile, the author is careful to note that God is responsible for Cyrus’s decision. Both Jeremiah and Isaiah had prophesied that the Jews would be freed from Babylonian rule by Cyrus, with Jeremiah even predicting the date this would occur. God made sure these prophecies would come to pass. He is sovereign over all the affairs of the world.

Tens of thousands of Jews decide to take up Cyrus’s offer to return to Judah. Their Babylonian neighbors assist them with silver, gold, animals, and other goods that would help them get resettled in Judah (reminiscent of the Israelites leaving Egypt). Cyrus orders all of the treasures that were taken by Nebuchadnezzar from the temple to be returned to the Jews. The Jews begin their trek to their homeland under the command of Sheshbazzar.

As we move to verses 8-13 in chapter three, two new leaders have taken charge of the post-exilic community in Jerusalem: Zerubbabel and Jeshua. Zerubbabel has evidently succeeded Sheshbazzar as political leader of the community and Jeshua is acting as the religious leader, or high priest.

In the second year after their arrival, they begin to construct the foundations of the new temple. When the foundation is completed, there is a great celebration which is patterned after King David’s celebration of the Ark being brought to Jerusalem. After 70 years in exile, the people of Judah sing about God, “For he is good, for his steadfast love endures forever toward Israel.”

In the midst of shouting and praise, the older members of the community, who had seen Solomon’s temple before it was destroyed, are weeping because they realize that the new temple they are constructing is inferior to the grandeur of the original temple. The prophet Haggai, some years later, would reassure the people of Judah that the new temple would outshine the old.

“’The latter glory of this house shall be greater than the former, says the LORD of hosts. And in this place I will give peace, declares the LORD of hosts.’”

Why? Because the Son of God, the Messiah, Jesus Christ Himself would enter the new temple and bring it unparalleled glory because of His presence.

Even though construction of the new temple is started in 536 BC, the people of Judah would not finish until 515 BC, 21 years later. Why did it take so long? Ezra 4:1-5 provides one reason: the hostility of the people living around Jerusalem.

Who are these enemies and adversaries of post-exilic community? John Martin writes,

The enemies of Judah and Benjamin refer to the people living in Palestine since the time of the fall of the Northern Kingdom in 722 B.C. . . .

The ‘enemies’ (called ‘the peoples around them,’ Ezra 4:4) were the descendants of these mixed peoples and the forefathers of the New Testament Samaritans. These people in Ezra’s day claimed that they worshiped the same God, that is, Yahweh, the God of Israel. But they had a syncretistic form of worship; they worshiped both Yahweh and others (2 Kings 17:29, 32–34, 41). Therefore their statement (Ezra 4:2) was not fully accurate and was apparently made to mislead the leadership of the returned band.

The enemies of Judah request to participate in the construction project. They argue that since they worship the same god as Judah, then they should help build the temple. However, Zerubbabel and Jeshua refuse to let them build the temple. Why? Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Peter H. Davids, F. F. Bruce and Manfred T. Brauch, in Hard Sayings of the Bible, write,

Zerubbabel’s refusal to accept help, then, must not be viewed as being sinfully separatistic or just plain mistaken. No doubt the leaders of the province of Samaria viewed the emergence of a new, aggressive presence in Judah, one that enjoyed the favor of the imperial government of Persia, as a threat. Hence their offer to help in sharing the costs and labor in building the temple would have entailed a certain amount of control in the temple itself. It would appear that the offer had more of the overtones of political power than of pure neighborliness. It was for this reason that Zerubbabel refused help from these who usually were their enemies.

When Zerubbabel and Jeshua refuse to allow them to participate, the enemies’ next move is to begin a campaign of harassment against the workers. This campaign likely consisted of threats of bodily harm and property damage. Mervin Breneman, in vol. 10, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, The New American Commentary, speculates that the counselors in verse 5 “may have been Persian officials bribed to obstruct the builders in every possible way.” The author notes that the harassment continued for decades.

Work on the temple stops from 535 BC to 520 BC. Two prophets, Haggai and Zechariah, encourage the people of Judah to start building again, and they succeed. John Martin reflects on the role of these two prophets:

They were vitally concerned with the building of the temple because they realized that their nation could never fulfill the obligations of the Mosaic Covenant till the temple worship was reinstated. Both of these prophets placed the blame for the hard times the nation experienced during this period on the people’s lack of obedience in not rebuilding the temple. However, Ezra did not deal with that question in his book. He stressed the outside opposition which was also a factor in slowing the work.

As soon as work resumes, however, a Persian governor, Tattenai, intervenes and writes a letter to King Darius about the temple construction. King Darius investigates and finds the original decree signed by Cyrus which gave the Jews permission to build the temple.

In chapter 6, verses 6-12, Darius writes back Tattenai and gives him instructions to not impede the Jews, and to instead help them finish the project with financial assistance. Anyone who disobeys the decree is to be impaled and have their house destroyed.

This victory of God’s people clearly displays the providence of God at work through these pagan potentates. God in his providence works everything together to fulfill his plan. He used the prophets Haggai and Zechariah to inspire the people to work; he used the kings’ decrees to open doors and provide the means. The author displayed the holy enthusiasm all Christians should share when they realize they are part of God’s plan to fulfill his kingdom.

Share this:

Traditional scholarship holds that Daniel was written in the sixth century BC and is historically reliable, but many modern biblical scholars hold that Daniel was written in the second century BC and is pious fiction. Let’s take a look at some of the evidence offered for the second century date and responses to that evidence by critical scholarship.

Belshazzar is called ‘king’ of Babylon in Daniel 5; the actual king was Nabonidus.

Darius the Mede (5:31 and ch. 6) is otherwise unknown.

The stories of Nebuchadnezzar’s insanity and of the fiery furnace read like pious legends— far-fetched miracle stories common in intertestamental Jewish texts.

Half of Daniel was written in Aramaic, a language Jews spoke during the intertestamental period. Daniel 3 also includes three Greek words— suggesting that the book was written after Greek culture had invaded the Near East.

How do traditionalists respond?

Ben Sirach also omits mention of other famous Israelites, including Ezra. Also, Sirach may himself have been influenced by Daniel. In Sirach 36:10 he prayed, ‘Hasten the day, and remember the appointed time’— verbiage resembling Daniel 11: 27, 35. It may be that ben Sirach offhandedly cited Daniel, which of course implies that the book already existed in his lifetime.

The book demonstrates familiarity with the history and culture of the seventh and sixth centuries B.C. Daniel rightly portrays the position of Belshazzar, coregent with Nabonidus. He could have appropriately been called ‘king’ (5: 1), but in 5: 16 Belshazzar offered to make the one who could interpret the writing on the wall ‘the third highest ruler in the kingdom.’ As Belshazzar was himself the second ruler, this was the highest honor he could confer.

Darius the Mede is not mentioned by that name outside the Bible. This is the kind of historical puzzle scholars frequently encounter in ancient texts. In contrast, intertestamental Jewish works of religious fiction lack historical credibility in a way that has no parallel in historical works. The Apocryphal book of Judith, for example, written during the reign of Antiochus IV, contains absurd historical blunders and is altogether unlike Daniel.

The miracles of Daniel are outside the ability of history or archaeology to prove. Still, the following observations are pertinent: Miracles do not prove that a work is fictional. Nebuchadnezzar’s madness was a rare but authentic clinical condition called boanthropy. ‘Made-up’ miracle stories contain outrageous elements with no clinical analogy (e.g., in Tb 2: 9– 10, another Apocryphal book, Tobit goes blind because of sparrow droppings in his eyes).

The fact that half of Daniel is written in Aramaic is a mystery with regard to any proposed reconstruction of its history. But the Aramaic of Daniel is ‘official,’ or ‘imperial’— the standardized Aramaic used in official correspondence when Aramaic was the lingua franca of the Near East (see 2Ki 18: 26; Ezr 4: 7; Da 2: 4), not the colloquial, regional Aramaic of second-century B.C. Palestine, at which time the common language of the region was Greek. All three of the Greek words of 3: 5 are musical terms. Greek poets and musicians were renowned, so their musical vocabulary came into use early. What would be surprising is how little Greek appears in Daniel, if the book had been written in the second century B.C., when the world was thoroughly Hellenized. The Persian words in Daniel are of an older, pre-Hellenistic Persian.

Stephen Miller, writing in the Apologetics Study Bible, offers additional evidence for the traditional dating of Daniel in the sixth century BC:

2. The book professes to have been written by Daniel (see 7: 1; 12: 4), to be an account of a historical individual who experienced the exile and lived in Babylon, and to predict future events (e.g., 2: 29-45; 7: 2,15-27; 8: 15-26; 9: 24-27; 10: 14; 11: 2– 12: 4).

3. One of the eight manuscripts of Daniel discovered at Qumran (4QDanc) has been dated to about 125 b.c. and may have been written earlier. Some scholars have argued that there would have been insufficient time for the book of Daniel to have gained such widespread acceptance if it were written only 40 years previously.

4. The Septuagint was the Greek translation of the OT produced in Alexandria, Egypt, that came to be used widely by the Jews of the Diaspora. Scholars generally agree that at least the Pentateuch (first five books) was translated in the middle of the third century b.c., but it is likely that all the Bible books were translated into Greek about the same time. If so, a second century date for Daniel is impossible. According to the critical view, only 30 years after it was written, the book of Daniel was received into the canon and carried to Alexandria, approximately 300 miles away, and there translated into Greek. Such a proposal seems unlikely.

5. Ezekiel, the sixth-century prophet, mentioned Daniel three times in his book (Ezk 14: 14, 20; 28: 3)— seemingly clear verification of the traditional view. Critical scholars, however, insist Ezekiel was speaking of a mythological hero named Danel who appears in the ancient Ugaritic epic “The Tale of Aqhat.” A decisive argument against such a theory is that the epic Danel was an idolater, hardly a model of faithfulness to Israel’s God. Ezekiel must have been referring to the author of the book of Daniel. If so, the historicity of Daniel and his book would seem to be established.

Share this:

The Book of Jeremiah was written by the prophet of that name over the course of his ministry, which lasted from approximately 626 – 580 BC. Jeremiah tells us that he dictated his words to his secretary, Baruch. Jeremiah began his ministry during the thirteenth year of King Josiah, and he continued preaching through the reigns of Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah. He lingered in Jerusalem even after Nebuchadnezzar finally destroyed the city in 586 BC.

Reclusive, analytical and self-critical by nature— he has aptly been called the ‘weeping prophet’— Jeremiah also preached an unpopular message. The people of Judah were in apostasy, God would not protect them and they were obliged to submit to Babylonian demands. Above all, and despite the promise that someday God would give Israel a new covenant (Jer 31), the prophet’s overall message was one of doom and gloom: Jerusalem was soon to fall. Because of his negative stance, Jeremiah was widely despised and continuously in danger (11: 18– 23; 26: 8; 38: 6). On at least one occasion the text of his message was destroyed by the king (36: 20– 24). Even Jeremiah’s scribe, Baruch, was dismayed about his own future (ch. 45). Jeremiah, an old man, lived to see his words fulfilled and Jerusalem destroyed.

As chapter 27 opens, the year is 594 BC and Zedekiah is king in Judah. Zedekiah has invited ambassadors from neighboring nations to Jerusalem to decide whether to rebel against Babylon and King Nebuchadnezzar.

God instructs Jeremiah to make an ox yoke and place it around his neck. An ox yoke was made of wooden bars fastened around the neck by leather straps. It was placed on cattle to steer them for plowing or threshing.

Jeremiah goes to the ambassadors and gives them the very unpopular message that they are to submit to Babylonian rule (symbolized by the ox yoke around Jeremiah’s neck) until God ends the Babylonian empire in the distant future. F. B. Huey, in vol. 16, Jeremiah, Lamentations, The New American Commentary, explains that “the expression ‘his son and his grandson’ (lit. “son’s son”) must not be taken literally. It is an idiom for a long period of time.” If they rebel against Babylon, God Himself will punish them with sword, famine, and pestilence. The Babylonian Empire would eventually be defeated by Persia under Cyrus in 539 BC.

Jeremiah makes clear to King Zedekiah and the foreign envoys that God has chosen Nebuchadnezzar to rule over their nations. If they rebel against Babylon, they are rebelling against God. Jeremiah warns them to ignore false prophets who are promising victory over Babylon if they will rebel. The nations who submit to Babylon will not have their capitals destroyed and their people deported. Unfortunately, we know that Judah did not heed Jeremiah’s words and did attempt to escape Babylonian rule, only to be crushed in 586 BC.

As we skip ahead to chapter 28, Jeremiah is confronted by a prophet of Judah named Hananiah. Hananiah tells the people of Jerusalem that God will break the Babylonians and return all the exiles and all the treasures of the temple in two years. He then takes the yoke from Jeremiah’s neck, breaks it, and repeats that Babylon will fall within two years.

Is Hananiah knowingly lying about his prophecy or does he sincerely believe that God has told him Babylon will fall within two years? No one can say for sure, but Hananiah may have been persuaded to make his bold prediction because of the events unfolding in Babylon at that time. F. B. Huey writes,

The Babylonian Chronicles indicate that Nebuchadnezzar was putting down a revolt in Babylon at that time. His preoccupation with troubles elsewhere may have encouraged Hananiah’s optimistic belief of imminent return of the exiles. It is probable, therefore, that Hananiah thought of himself as a real prophet of God. People must, however, be cautious when they confuse their own desires and ideas (i.e., Hananiah) with those of God.

Jeremiah responds that he hopes Hananiah is right, but that Hananiah is contradicting the many prophets who preceded him. They predicted war, famine, and pestilence because of the sins of Judah. If Hananiah is predicting peace instead, then his word must be tested. If Babylon falls and peace comes within two years, then Hananiah is the true prophet. Jeremiah is invoking the test of Deut 18:20–22.

Some time after this occurs, God speaks to Jeremiah and settles the dispute. God reiterates that He has chosen Nebuchadnezzar to rule over Judah and that Judah and the surrounding nations must submit to Babylonian rule. To fight against Babylon is to fight against God Himself. God tells Jeremiah that Hananiah is a false prophet who is lying to the people. To prove this is true, God decrees that Hananiah will die within the year (death was the penalty for false prophets prescribed in Deut 13:5; 18:20). He dies less than two months later, thus proving that he was a false prophet.

There are not only false prophets in Jerusalem who are predicting the soon return of the exiles, there are false prophets among the exile community in Babylon who are saying the same things. In chapter 29, Jeremiah writes a letter to the exile community to counter the false prophets among them.

Jeremiah’s instructions to the exiles are to settle down and make Babylon their home. They are to build houses and families. They are to pray for the Babylonians and seek their good. They are not to listen to the prophets who are telling them that Babylon will fall and they will return home soon. Huey notes that

this is the only place in the OT where prayer for one’s enemies and for unbelievers is commended (cf. Matt 5:43–48; Rom 12:21; Titus 3:1–2; 1 Pet 2:18). It was practical advice though difficult to put into practice. It has never been easy to pray for one’s enemies. However, it was in their best interest to do so. If Babylon prospered, the exiles would prosper also. Praying for the government has become a Jewish custom.

After 70 years in exile, God will bring the Jews back to the Promised Land. God reassures the exiles that He has not abandoned them, that His plans are to bring them back and give them peace and prosperity. When the exiles seek after God, God will be found by them.

Share this:

Although Jewish and Christian traditions, dating all the way back to the 1st millennium BC, all indicate that the 8th century prophet Isaiah wrote the book with his name on it, many modern biblical scholars claim that two, three, or even more authors actually contributed to the book over a period of several centuries.

The first was Isaiah (1: 1), the eighth-century B.C. prophet. Called ‘First Isaiah’ or ‘Proto-Isaiah,’ he is thought to have produced the core of chapters 1– 39. ‘Second’ or ‘Deutero-Isaiah’ is assumed to have been an anonymous prophet of the sixth century B.C., to whom are attributed chapters 40– 55. Another postexilic prophet, ‘Third’ or ‘Trito-Isaiah,’ is posited to have composed most of chapters 56– 66, perhaps around 400 B.C.

What arguments and evidence do Trito-Isaiah advocates offer to convince us their position is correct?

Advocates of this theory attempt to demonstrate that the style, theology and background of Isaiah 1– 39 are unlike those of either 40– 55 or 56– 66. Second Isaiah— but not First— they argue, depicts God in purely monotheistic terms. Also, First Isaiah is seen as a prophet of judgment, who placed his hopes on the Davidic king, and Second Isaiah a prophet of comfort who pinned his expectations on the Lord’s suffering servant.

More substantial are the arguments focusing on the backgrounds of the respective chapters. The Old Testament prophets in general are widely understood to have written from their own unique historical situations. Even if one acknowledges that Isaiah could have predicted the Babylonian captivity, it is argued, it is unlikely that he wrote chapters 40– 55, since those texts were written from within the context of captivity. Also, the Persian king Cyrus (c. 539 B.C.) is mentioned by name in 44: 28 and 45: 1, 13, suggesting that Cyrus was a contemporary of the author of chapters 40– 55. The background of Third Isaiah is posited to be different again. By this point Jerusalem had been rebuilt, its citizens no longer under threat from either Assyria or Babylon.

How do critics of Trito-Isaiah respond?

An author’s style depends upon a variety of factors (age, purpose, subject matter, audience, etc.), and stylistic factors like vocabulary are apt to change.

The three ‘Isaiahs’ do share many phrases and words, suggesting stylistic unity. For example, God is called the ‘Holy One of Israel’ throughout (e.g., 10: 17; 41: 14; 60: 9).

The alleged theological differences are artificial. Isaiah is a lengthy book, but it does not incorporate any real internal tension or overt contradiction.

All of Isaiah is concerned with Canaanite idolatry. While scholars would expect such a focus from First Isaiah, they would not anticipate it in Second or Third Isaiah (e.g., 57: 13); it was not a significant issue to postexilic prophets such as Zechariah, Haggai and Malachi.

From early on Isaiah promised that the Gentiles would submit to the God of Israel (e.g., 2: 2– 4), an expectation developed throughout the book (e.g., 42: 4; 49: 6) and a unifying theological motif for the whole of Isaiah.

What about the historical perspective and predictions of Isaiah?

Isaiah did project himself into the future to describe events as though they had already occurred (e.g., 5: 13– 17; 9: 1– 7; 23: 1, 14). In fact, Isaiah 6, a foundational chapter, presents the exile as inevitable. Isaiah assumed that exile was certain and wrote chapters 40– 55 with that in mind.

Isaiah’s mention of Cyrus’s name has a parallel in the prediction of Josiah’s name in 1 Kings 13: 2. It is true that predictions of this kind are fairly rare in the Old Testament, but they do occur.

In contrast to Ezekiel, who lived in Babylon, ‘Second Isaiah’ gave no indication at all that he was familiar with life in Babylon. This suggests that the author of Isaiah 40– 55 did not in fact experience Babylonian exile— which is just what we would expect if the chapters were written by Isaiah of Jerusalem.

Finally, Kaiser and Garrett note that the “only related archaeological evidence comes from a Dead Sea Scroll designated 1QIsaa. This nearly complete text of Isaiah confirms the conservative position in that there is no break between chapters 39 and 40.”

Share this:

The Book of Micah was likely written by the prophet of that name who lived during the 8th century BC. Micah was born in a town about 25 miles southwest of Jerusalem (in Judah), but he may have lived in Jerusalem during parts of his ministry. He prophesied during the reigns of the following kings of Judah: Jotham (750– 732 BC), Ahaz (735– 715 BC), and Hezekiah (715– 686 BC).

The identification of these kings does not mean that he was active from 750– 686 but that his ministry spanned parts of each reign. Since he predicted the fall of Samaria (722 b.c.), the bulk of his ministry probably took place between about 750 and 725 b.c. Jeremiah 26: 17-18 refers to Micah as prophesying during the time of Hezekiah. Determining exact dates, however, for each of the prophecies contained in the book is difficult. Micah was a contemporary of Isaiah, Hosea, and possibly Amos. His prophecies addressed Samaria and Jerusalem. Samaria was the capital of the northern kingdom (Israel) and Jerusalem of the southern kingdom (Judah). Even though Micah ministered in Judah, some of his messages were directed toward Israel.

In chapter 1, verses 1-9, the prophet Micah reports the vision he has of the destruction of Samaria and Jerusalem due to their sinfulness. Samaria is the capital of Israel and Jerusalem is the capital of Judah.

Micah calls on the entire world to heed God’s witness against them. God is coming down from heaven and He will be metaphorically stepping on mountains and crushing them under His feet upon his arrival. Why? For the sins of the people of Israel and Judah. In particular, the capital cities of Samaria and Jerusalem are responsible for the transgressions of their respective nations.

Micah, in verses 6-7, then prophesies the destruction of Israel and her capital city. Samaria will be laid waste. The money paid to the illicit temple prostitutes in Samaria for their “religious services” will be taken by another nation and used to fund its own temple prostitution. Likewise, this same nation will destroy all of the pagan idols in Samaria.

Who is the nation that will overthrow Israel? Assyria. In fact, in 725 BC, the Assyrian king, Shalmaneser V laid siege to Samaria and 3 years later it fell to the Assyrians. Micah foresaw this disaster years before it occurred, but his prophetic words were ignored.

The fall of Israel would also affect Judah. Micah also foresees, in verses 8-9, that Assyria will march through the territory of Judah, all the way to the gate of Jerusalem itself. Because of this vision, Micah marches through the streets of Jerusalem in mourning, trying to get the attention of the people living there, to no avail.

In the year 701 BC, 21 years after the fall of Israel, the Assyrian king Sennacherib would fulfill Micah’s prophecy by sweeping through Judah all the way to the doorstep of Jerusalem. Only through God’s intervention does Judah, ruled by King Hezekiah, survive. God strikes the Assyrian army with a plague and their military campaign against Judah promptly ends.

In chapter 3, verses 9-12, Micah continues to prophesy about Judah. The leaders of Judah, at the time Micah is alive, are corrupt. They deny justice to the poor and they accept bribes for judicial decisions. The Levitical priests are accepting wages above and beyond the required tithe to enrich themselves at other’s expense. The prophets sell their oracles to the highest bidder, instead of seeking the word of God. In all of this, the rulers, priests, and prophets in Jerusalem believe that they are exempt from the tragedy that befell Israel. Why? Because the temple of God is located in Jerusalem and so they believe that God will never destroy His temple, no matter how they behave. Micah knows they are wrong.

Because of the sin and corruption of Judah, Jerusalem will someday be destroyed, just as Samaria was. Micah later identifies the foreign invader as the Babylonians. In 586 BC, Micah’s prophecy would come true when King Nebuchadnezzar conquers Jerusalem.

Although Micah has pronounced the eventual destruction of both Israel and Judah, his message is not all doom and gloom. Micah foresees a day when God will raise up Jerusalem so that all nations will submit to her. Who will rule Jerusalem and the rest of the world in this future kingdom of peace and security?

Micah answers this question in chapter 5, verse 2.

“But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose coming forth is from of old, from ancient days.”

Micah predicts that a ruler will be born in Bethlehem, which is the same place that his ancestor David was born. This ruler is the king whom God promised David in 2 Samuel 7, the future Anointed One, or Messiah. Micah is reminding his readers that the messianic promises made to David will indeed come to pass in the future. The apostle Matthew, in the 2nd chapter of his gospel, applies Micah’s prophecy to the birth of Jesus. He is the Messiah that Micah predicted would be born in Bethlehem, just as his ancestor David was.

The deliverer has come to this world in the person of Jesus; like David, Jesus is the new Shepherd of God’s sheep, offering security from external enemies and a life of security. Jesus, of the Davidic line, is above all a gift of God to this world. To those who feel shut in on every side, like the besieged citizens of Jerusalem who first heard these words, Jesus brings the prospect of deliverance and security. And that is the essence of the Christmas message: God makes a gift to a besieged world through whom deliverance may come.

In verses 3-6, Micah reminds national Israel (and Judah in particular) that she will have to wait for the Messiah. Before he arrives, they will go through great pain, likened to a woman in labor. Kenneth Barker argues that the woman in labor is

a reference to Israel (Judah) or, more particularly, Zion (Jerusalem). Thus it would echo 4:9–10. God’s chosen people (the covenant nation), then, would bring forth the Messianic Ruler. The Ruler’s ‘brothers’ (=his people) would return from exile to join the other Israelites in Judah and Jerusalem as a restored, reunified, complete covenant nation again.

Verses 5-6 emphasize that all nations who attack God’s chosen people will be repelled by the Messiah. Under the Messiah’s rule, there will be peace on earth. Although Jesus did not bring peace on earth during his first coming, we know from the prophet Micah that he will bring peace during his future return.

Finally, in chapter 6, verses 6-8, Micah addresses an important question his readers would have had. What does God want from us? Micah speaks for Israel in verses 6-7 when he offers an answer to the question. The Israelites presume that merely offering sacrifices, in great numbers, and of great value, will appease God.

In verse 8, though, Micah writes what God truly desires from each Israelite and from each one of us. He wants our hearts and minds. He wants us to love Him and love our neighbors by showing them justice and mercy.

Thus this saying is not an invitation, in lieu of the gospel, to save oneself by kindly acts of equity and fairness. Nor is it an attack on the forms of sacrifices and cultic acts mentioned in the tabernacle and temple instructions. It is instead a call for the natural consequence of truly forgiven men and women to demonstrate the reality of their faith by living it out in the marketplace. Such living would be accompanied with acts and deeds of mercy, justice and giving of oneself for the orphan, the widow and the poor.

Share this:

The Book of Jonah was most likely written by the prophet Jonah in the 8th century BC (sometime between 793 – 753 BC). Jonah lived in the northern kingdom of Israel during the reign of Jeroboam II and he (Jonah) is specifically mentioned in 2 Kings 14:25.

Jonah’s ministry began right after Elisha’s ended and Jonah was likely a contemporary of both Amos and Hosea in Israel. Amos warned Israel that she would be exiled “beyond Damascus” and Hosea specifically prophesied that Israel would be ruled over by the nation of Assyria, in which Nineveh is a major city.

The Book of Jonah is a straightforward narrative, so rather than recapitulate the story, I will instead answer some of the common questions that are raised about the story.

Question 1: Where was Nineveh and why was it considered wicked by God?

Answer 1: Nineveh was a major city and administrative district in the nation of Assyria. It was approximately 500 miles, or 1 month’s journey, from Israel. According to D. J. Wiseman in New Bible Dictionary,

It lay in the upper Mesopotamian plain, bounded on the west by the Syrian desert, on the south by the Jebel Hamrin and Babylonia, and on the north and east by the Urartian (Armenian) and Persian hills. The most fertile and densely populated part of Assyria lay east of the central river Tigris (‘Hiddekel’, Gn. 2:14, AV). The Heb. ’aššûr (Assyr. aššur) is used both of this land and of its people. The term Assyria was sometimes applied to those territories which were subject to the control of its kings dwelling at Nineveh, Assur and Calah, the principal cities. At the height of its power in the 8th–7th centuries BC, these territories included Media and southern Anatolia, Cilicia, Syria, Palestine, Arabia, Egypt, Elam and Babylonia.

Archaeology confirms the biblical witness to the wickedness of the Assyrians. They were well known in the ancient world for brutality and cruelty. Ashurbanipal, the grandson of Sennacherib, was accustomed to tearing off the lips and hands of his victims. Tiglath-Pileser flayed victims alive and made great piles of their skulls.

Question 2: Why did Jonah get on a ship heading west for a city in Spain (Tarshish) instead of going east to Nineveh where God commanded him to go?

Answer 2: There are two possible reasons. One, Jonah did not want to be God’s missionary to such a cruel and brutal group of people. Two, Jonah knew, because of the prophets Amos and Hosea, that Israel would someday be conquered by Assyria, so Jonah didn’t want anything to do with the nation who would soon subjugate his own people.

Question 3: What swallowed Jonah?

Answer 3: The Hebrew word allows for any large sea animal. It could have been a whale or a large fish of some kind. It had to be large enough to fit an adult male inside of it and there are plenty of sea creatures that have this capacity.

Question 4: What does Jonah pray about in chapter 2?

Answer 4: Jonah realizes that he would have drowned if God had not provided the sea creature to save him, so he is thanking God for saving his life.

Question 5: Why would the Ninevites be so willing to repent after hearing a foreign prophet, Jonah, for only one day?

Answer 5: Leaving aside God’s influence on them, there may be other historical reasons why the Ninevites were so receptive to Jonah’s message. Walter Kaiser Jr. and Duane Garrett explain in the NIV, Archaeological Study Bible:

Nineveh’s historical situation during this period may explain the readiness of the king and his people to accept Jonah’s message. Assyrian power was at a particularly low point during the reign of Assur-dan III (773– 756 B.C.). Assyria had suffered military reverses, diplomatic setbacks, famine and domestic uprisings. In addition, an eclipse had taken place on June 15, 763 B.C., and this could have been regarded as a terrible omen (there had also been an eclipse in 784 B.C.). With all of this going on, it is not surprising that the Ninevites would have been especially jittery and ready to pay attention to a foreign prophet who suddenly appeared in their city.

Question 6: Why was Jonah angry with God after Nineveh repented and God did not bring calamity on them?

Answer 6: For the same reasons stated in answer 2 above. Jonah wanted God to punish Nineveh, not show mercy to them.

Question 7: What lesson does God teach Jonah in chapter 4?

Answer 7: Jonah is angry with God for killing a plant that was covering his head, and yet he is perfectly happy to allow God to kill 120,000 people living in Nineveh. The people of Nineveh belong to God, just as the people of Israel belong to God. A true prophet of God should pray for God’s mercy on all mankind, not just the tribe or nation to which he belongs.

Share this:

Skeptical scholars have long argued that David’s existence is doubtful because there was no archaeological evidence of his rule or his alleged dynasty. From roughly 850 BC onward, there have been many discoveries confirming the kings of Israel and Judah listed in the Bible, but pre-850 BC evidence has been almost nonexistent.

Although only a fraction of the original inscription was recovered, the preserved portion alludes to eight Biblical kings. Based on the names recorded in the document, it can be dated to around 841 B.C. Even though his name is missing, it appears that Hazael, king of Aram from approximately 842– 800 B.C., commissioned the stela (or stele) to commemorate his defeat of Joram and Ahaziah at Ramoth Gilead (2Ki 8: 28– 29). . . . Hazael is mentioned in the records of Shalmaneser III, king of Assyria from approximately 858– 824 B.C., and his name is inscribed on objects taken as booty by the Assyrians.

The initial lines of the inscription mention ‘my father,’ possibly a reference to Ben-Hadad II, Hazael’s predecessor. The names of Joram and Ahab can be restored in the phrase ‘[I killed Jo] ram son of [Ahab] king of Israel,’ where the brackets indicate [gaps] in the original text. Joram was king of Israel from approximately 852 to 841 B.C., while Ahab ruled from approximately 874 to 853 B.C. This is followed by the statement ‘and [I] killed [Ahaz]iahu son of [Jehoram kin]g of the House of David.’

Why is this so important? Kaiser and Garrett continue:

The most remarkable aspect of the Tel Dan Stele is the phrase ‘House of David,’ providing extrabiblical evidence for the existence of David. This is important because some recent scholars have denied the existence of the united kingdom under David and Solomon, treating David as a character more of legend than of reality. This inscription demonstrates that ancient kings recognized the Davidic dynasty over Jerusalem and by implication validates the historicity of David himself. Some scholars have tried to avoid this implication by arguing for an alternative translation for ‘House of David,’ claiming that the words refer to some place or to a god rather than to King David. Few are persuaded by these protests, and the inscription is widely recognized to be an extrabiblical witness to the dynasty of David.

As often happens, one discovery can lead to others. Equally convincingly, Lemaire was subsequently able to show that bt-[d]wd is to be read in line 31 of the famous stela of Mesha king of Moab, dating to about the same period. This links the “House of David” (= Judah) with an occupation of part of southern Moab (around Horonen), corresponding to Israel’s penetration in the north under Omri and his dynasty. So we have David mentioned twice in retrospect, some six generations after his death.

Kitchen writes,

Nor is this all, it seems. After his victory over Rehoboam and Jeroboam in 926/925, Shoshenq I of Egypt had engraved at Karnak a long list of Palestinian place-names. Some of these are now destroyed, and thus lost to us; many can be readily identified with known places in Israel, Judah, the Negev, and a few in western Transjordan. But quite a few have remained obscure. Among these, in a group of names clearly located by association in the Negev/south Judah area, is ‘the heights of Dwt.‘

Kitchen argues that Dwt should be translated as “David,” which means that “this would give us a place-name that commemorated David in the Negev barely fifty years after his death, within living memory of the man.”